%. 


Lemuel  S.  Potwin 


The  Resurrection 
of  Christ 


e- 


BS2427 
.P87 


.F6  7 


I 


^NfeFFfiA^i^^ 


JAN  29I92G 


[Reprint  from  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1890.] 


ARTICLE     I. 

THE  RESURRECTION  OF  CHRIST  A  PART  OF 
CHRISTIANITY. 

BY  PROFESSOR  LEMUEL  S.  POTWIN,  ADELBERT  COLLEGE,  CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

It  seems  to  have  become  a  question  whether  miracles 
prove  the  truth  of  Christianity,  or  Christianity  proves  the 
truth  of  the  miracles.  To  many  Christian  minds  the  prin- 
cipal argument  for  miracles  is  that  they  are  a  part  of 
Christianity.  They  admit  the  need  of  historical  evidence ; 
but,  instead  of  eyeing  it  with  suspicion,  they  find  a  strong 
presumption  on  its  side.  Their  latent  syllogism  is  this : 
Christianity  is  the  true  religion  ;  Christianity  carries  with 
it  a  belief  in  the  Christian  miracles ;  therefore,  the  Chris- 
tian miracles  are  true.  The  agnostic  adopts  the  same 
minor  premise,  but,  with  a  different  major,  constructs  his 
syllogism  thus :  Whatever  religion  requires  a  belief  in 
miracles  cannot  be  accepted  as  true  ;  Christianity  requires 
such  a  belief ;  therefore,  Christianity  cannot  be  accepted 
as  true.  There  is  a  third  possible  syllogism  in  which  the 
minor  premise  is  denied,  viz. :  Christianity  is  the  true  re- 
ligion ;  it  is  independent  of  a  belief  in  miracles  ;  therefore, 
the  Christian  miracles  are  irrelevant  to  the  acceptance  of 
Christianity. 

VOL.  XLVIL   NO.   t86.  I 


178  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  [April, 

Now,  is  the  arj^mnent  of  the  first  syllogism  legitimate? 
We  shoiikl  bear  in  mind  that  it  does  not  interfere  with 
the  old  and  solid  reasoning  that  miracles  prove  the  truth 
of  Christianity.  It  simply,  in  the  superabundance  of  evi- 
dence afforded  by  Christian  history,  first  finds  Christianity 
true  on  various  grounds  apart  from  miracles,  and  then  in- 
fers the  truth  of  those  miracles  that  inhere  in  it.  Nor  is 
this  reasoning  in  a  circle.  One  does  not  prove  Christian- 
ity from  the  miracles  and  then  turn  round  and  prove  the 
miracles  from  Christianity.  Plainly,  if  both  are  true,  and 
logically  connected,  one  can  reason  from  either  to  the 
other,  provided  the  one  taken  as  the  premise  be  estab- 
lished independently  of  the  other.  Now  it  is  true  that 
many  a  believer  has  accepted  Christianity  because  of  what 
it  is,  and  what  it  has  done  in  the  world;  because  it  meets 
the  wants  of  his  nature,  his  soul ;  or  even  because  he  has 
been  brought  up  in  it,  and  breathed  its  atmosphere  as  a 
part  of  his  life.  Such  a  believer  may  never  have  investi- 
gated critically  the  evidence  for  miracles  and  may  doubt 
his  power  to  do  so.  He  may  feel  that  they  are  very  dis- 
tant and  un-modern,  but  after  all  it  seems  to  him  that  these 
signs  and  wonders  are  somehow  bound  up  in  Christianity. 
He  argues  from  Christianity  to  miracles,  and  not  from 
miracles  to  Christianity. 

What  we  now  propose  is  to  take  one — the  one — of  these 
miracles,  and  show  why  Christian  believers  are  justified 
in  accepting  it  as  true  without  going  into  all  the  critical 
details  of  historical  investigation  ;  in  other  words,  why 
the  presumption  in  their  minds  should  be  strongly  in  fa- 
vor of  the  resurrection,  and  should  remove  all  antecedent 
improbabilit}''  from  the  Gospel  narratives.  If  we  find 
this  to  be  true  of  believers,  we  will  then  ask.  What  should 
be  the  mental  attitude  of  unbelievers  toward  the  received 
records  of  the  resurrection? 

I.  Our  first  point  is  that  Christianity  promises  a  bless- 
ed resurrection  to  all  its  adherents.  No  one  will  dispute 
this  as  a  matter  of  fact.     It  may   be  asserted,  however, 


1890.]  a  Part  of  Christianity.  179 

that  such  a  promise,  or  hope,  is  incidental,  not  essential, 
to  Christianity.  The  reply  is  obvious  and  ample,  viz.: 
The  resurrection  of  believers — we  say  nothing  now  of  un- 
believers— is,  throughout  the  whole  history  of  our  relig- 
ion, completely  and  indissolubl}'  interwoven  with  Chris- 
tian faith.  We  do  not  say  that  it  ought  to  be — it  is.  Not 
only  does  the  New  Testament  teach  man's  resurrection, 
but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  faith  and  hope  has  always 
been  a  prominent  feature  in  Christianity.  From  the  Dor- 
mit  in  Christo  of  the  catacombs  down  through  all  the  ages, 
the  liturgies  and  hymns  and  sermons  of  the  church,  and 
all  Christian  life,  social  and  solitary,  speak  but  one  voice 
as  to  the  hope  of  victory  over  death  in  the  resurrection. 
This  Christianity,  bearing  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
as  its  crowning  triumph  and  its  glorious  hope,  is  the  only 
Christianity  that  we  know  of.  Now  our  argument  is  this : 
Every  believer  in  Christ  and  Christianity,  inasmuch  as  he 
believes  in  a  future  resurrection,  ought  to  find  no  diffi- 
culty in  believing  the  past  resurrection  of  the  Founder  of 
his  religion :  it  is  hard  not  to  believe  it.  This  argument 
does  not  rest  on  any  particular  theory  of  the  nature  of  the 
resurrection.  It  simply  claims  that  all  who  look  forward 
to  the  resurrection  of  men  are  bound,  in  consistency,  to 
have  open  minds  and  ready  belief  towards  the  great  past 
resurrection.  If  any  attenuate  the  future  resurrection  to 
a  bodiless  soul-existence,  we  have  to  say  that  their  view  is 
not  a  part  of  iactual  Christianity,  but  if  their  philosophy 
requires  them  to  hold  it,  they  will,  of  course,  apply  it  to 
Christ's  resurrection  also,  and  thus  they  may  retain  the 
shadow  of  the  argument,  though  without  much  of  its  sub- 
stance. Actual  Christianity  holds  to  a  bodily  reappear- 
ance that  in  some  way  preserves  the  identity  of  the  per- 
son. Hence  the  speculative  difficulties  in  the  way  of  be- 
lieving the  future  resurrection  are  vastly  greater  than  in 
the  case  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Putting  such  ques- 
tions aside,  we  maintain  that  a  Christian  has  a  logical  right 
to  even  anticipate  the  truth  of  Christ's  resurrection.     He 


igo  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  [April, 

may  leave  to  historical  investigation  all  questions  in  re- 
gard to  the  exact  time  and  place  and  surroundings.  He 
may  take  the  keenest  interest  in  discussing  these  points, 
but  underneath  all  is  the  strong  presumption  and  proba- 
bility that  at  some  time,  in  some  place,  and  with  certain 
surroundings,  Jesus  rose  from  death.  He  need  not  be 
ashamed  to  say  that  it  is  easy  for  him  to  believe  in  the 
resurrection,  and  easy  to  credit  the  simple  story  of  the 
Gospels. 

The  whole  case  may  be  illustrated  by  a  well-known  fact 
of  ancient  history.  Hannibal  crossed  the  Alps  with  an 
army.  Livy  says  so,  and  Polybius  says  so ;  but  they  do 
not  agree  in  details.  Nor  is  it  certain  by  what  pass  he 
crossed.  The  great  majority  of  modern  readers  are  inca- 
pable of  criticising  the  ancient  records  of  the  event,  but 
from  the  subsequent  course  of  history  which  they  have 
good  reason  to  credit,  they  conclude  that  he  must  have 
crossed  the  Alps.  If  Livy  and  Polybius  had  both  been 
silent  about  it,  or  if  their  discrepancies  were  tenfold  more 
serious  than  they  are,  we  should  still  know  that  Hannibal 
crossed  the  Alps  in  some  way  and  by  some  pass.  The 
surrounding  history  prepares  our  minds  to  believe  this  on 
even  slight  direct  evidence.  We  may  go  on  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  details,  and  determine,  if  we  can,  by  what  pass 
he  marched,  and  even  whether  he  poured  vinegar  on  the 
heated  rocks,  and  how  many  elephants  he  lost,  and  so  on, 
but  no  one  would  ask  us  to  settle  these  questions  before 
admitting  the  main  fact.  Further,  no  one  would  say  that 
we  ought  to  take  evidence  on  the  fact  as  an  isolated  oc- 
currence, wholly  separate  from  previous  and  subsequent 
history. 

We  need  not  press  this  illustration  to  extremes,  but  it  is 
plain  that  we  may  reasonably  believe  that  Jesus  rose  from 
the  dead,  if  that  fact  harmonizes  with  subsequent  history, 
without  settling  such  questions  as  why  the  tomb  was  not 
closed  with  a  well-fitting  door,  instead   of  a  stone/  and 

'  See  Nineteenth  Century,  April,  1889,  p.  491. 


1890.]  a  Part  of  Christianity.  181 

whether  the  four  evangelists  agree  perfectly  in  relating 
the  circumstances,  and  whether  any  ancient  uncritical  rec- 
ord whatever  would  be  sufficient  to  establish  such  a  fact 
in  a  modern  court  of  law.  Now  the  subsequent  history 
with  which  the  resurrection  of  Christ  harmonizes,  and 
into  which  it  enters  as  a  constituent  part,  is  no  other  than 
Christianity  itself  as  an  historical  fact,  and  a  mighty  force 
in  human  life  ;  and  in  the  fore-front  of  that  Christianity  is 
the  future  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Why  then  should  it 
be  thought  a  thing  incredible  that  Jesus  himself  should 
rise  ? 

We  are  still  considering  the  case  of  those  believers  who 
do  not  consciously  rest  their  faith  in  Christ  and  Christian- 
ity on  the  miracles.  They  depend  on  what  is  called  the 
"  internal  evidence,"  from  the  nature  and  effects  of  Chris- 
tianity, or,  still  more  commonly,  on  their  own  experience. 
We  are  inquiring  what  is  their  proper  attitude  of  mind 
towards  the  historical  evidence  of  the  resurrection.  We 
have  considered  the  presumption  arising  from  a  single 
feature  of  Christianity,  the  doctrine  of  the  future  resur- 
rection of  men.  We  ought  to  glance  at  some  of  the  other 
doctrines  of  our  religion  and  see  how  they  also  imply  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord.  For  our  purpose  a  glance  is 
enough. 

Look,  first,  at  the  divinity  of  Christ.  If  this  be  disputed 
as  a  doctrine  of  Christianity,  our  answer  is,  that  we  are 
considering  historical  Christianity  in  its  main  outlines, 
without  a  hair-splitting  discussion  of  dogmas.  The  Chris- 
tianity of  history  certainly  includes  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
Now  that  a  divine  being  living  on  the  earth  should  either 
not  die  or  return  to  life  after  death,  would  seem  the  most 
natural  thing  in  the  world.  No  extraordinary  evidence 
would  be  required  to  prove  it.  One  might  almost  as  well 
be  expected  to  quibble  over  the  statement  that  the  sun 
rose  on  the  resurrection  morning  as  that  Jesus  rose.  In 
this  we  are  not  reasoning  in  a  circle.  It  is  true  that  the 
divinit}^  of  Christ  has  been,  and  will  be,  proved  by  his  res- 


1 82  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  [April, 

urrection,  but  we  now  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  or  any- 
other  argument  in  favor  of  the  doctrine,  except  to  say 
that  many  of  them  are  drawn  from  sources  independent 
of  the  fact  of  a  resurrection.  The  belief  of  the  doctrine  is 
a  fact  in  the  religious  life  of  the  world.  The  shortest  ar- 
gument on  the  subject  that  we  remember  to  have  heard, 
and  from  a  man  of  intellectual  force,  was  this :  "  Jesus 
could  never  be  my  Saviour  if  he  were  not  divine."  It 
would  have  been  no  reasoning  in  a  circle  for  him  to  add, 
"it  must  be  that  such  a  Saviour,  if  he  should  die,  would 
rise  again."' 

The  same  general  method  of  reasoning  we  might  apply 
to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  the  judge  of  the  world,  to  his 
intercession,  to  the  whole  doctrine  and  duty  of  prayer, 
and  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  its  proph- 
ecy of  a  future  coming,  and  its  living  presence  at  the  ta- 
ble. It  may  be  thought  that  the  atonement,  the  cardinal 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  does  not  carry  with  it  the  resur- 
rection. But  a  little  reflection  will  show  that  the  atone- 
ment would  have  been  a  failure  if  it  found  its  untimely 
end  in  the  tomb  of  Joseph.  An  atonement  by  one  who 
remained  under  the  power  of  death  would  have  been  un- 
preachable.  Let  one  imagine,  if  he  can,  the  apostles  pro- 
claiming Christ  crucified  as  a  Saviour,  during  the  interval 
between  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection.  The  words  of 
Paul,  "  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea  rather  that  is  risen,"  ex- 
press the  true  connection  between  the  atonement  and  the 
resurrection. 

Let  this  suffice  for  a  view  of  the  doctrines  of  Christian- 
ity in  their  relation  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  Our 
claim  is,  not  that  they  prove  the  historical  accuracy  of  the 
Gospel  narratives,  but  that  they  afford  the  strongest  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  it,  and  that  one  in  our  day  who  em- 
braces Christianity  for  what  it  is  to-day  may  legitimately 
anticipate  that  no  historical  research  or  literary  criticism 
will  invalidate  the  records  of  the  resurrection. 

Let  us  indulge  in  a  homely  illustration.     Sometimes  at 


1890.]  a  Part  of  Christianity.  183 

golden  weddings  the  closets  and  drawers  of  the  newly 
happy  pair  are  searched  for  the  fifty-year-old  marriage 
certificate.  Sometimes  it  is  discovered  and  sometimes 
not.  Would  any  be  much  distressed  respecting  the  law- 
fulness of  the  marriage,  if  it  were  not  found?  A  half 
century  of  wedded  life,  with  its  intertwining  with  the  lives 
of  many  others,  with  its  traditions  and  incidental  records, 
ought  to  pass  for  something.  No  one  would  find  fault 
with  the  historical  science  or  the  logic  of  the  venerable 
couple  if  they  should  say  to  anxious  searchers,  "  Don't 
trouble  yourselves.  The  certificate  must  have  been  given. 
It's  all  right." 

The  church  has  celebrated  many  centennials.  It  is  so 
old  that  it  begins  to  hold  somewhat  lightly  its  early  cre- 
dentials. But  the  records  have  not  been  lost.  If  they 
are  beyond  minute  confirmation,  they  are  equally  beyond 
invalidation.  Christianity  in  its  present  glory  and  power 
can  afford  to  smile  at  -the  anxious  searchers  after  a  certifi- 
cate of  the  resurrection. 

II.  Our  plan  requires  us  to  consider,  next,  the  proper 
mental  attitude  of  unbelievers  towards  the  Christian  belief 
of  Christ's  resurrection.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that 
they  ought  to  be  believers.  We  wish  to  look  at  the  intel- 
lectual world  as  it  is.  There  are  many  agnostics.  They 
acknowledge  the  existence  of  Christianity  as  an  historic 
force,  but  do  not  receive  it  as  the  true  religion.  Yet  they 
believe  in  religion — a  religion  without  miracle,  without 
prayer,  without  Christ,  without  God.  How  can  we  ap- 
proach such  religionists  with  evidences  of  supernatural 
histor}^?  What  common  ground  do  we  stand  upon?  Shall 
we  start  with  the  blindly  revolving  nebula  of  relig- 
ious instinct  and  try  to  evolve  logically  the  ideas  of 
Deity  impersonal,  Deity  personal,  and  Deity  incarnate? 
Such  might  be  the  pathway  of  a  logic  bold  and  yet  subtle, 
but  our  object  is  far  humbler.  We  shall  be  content  if  we 
can  induce  agnostics  to  have  a  sincere  respect  for  the  logic 
of  Christian  believers  though  they  do  not  indorse  it.    For 


184  riie  Resurrection  of  Christ  [April, 

this  purpose  it  may  be  even  an  advantage  that  they  stand 
wholly  outside  of  the  Christian  circle.  Let  them  look  on 
coldly  if  they  must,  but  at  any  rate  impartially.  Let  them 
look  upon  Christianity  with  the  same  lack  of  personal 
sympathy  as  upon  Mohammedanism,  or  the  polytheism  of 
ancient  Greece.  Our  appeal,  then,  to  these  cold,  impar- 
tial, outside  unbelievers  is  this: — 

I.  We  ask  you,  first,  if  it  is  not  reasonable  and  logical 
for  men  to  be  Christian  believers  on  evidence  derived 
from  the  nature  and  power  of  Christianity  as  seen  in  the 
world  to-day,  without  going  into  any  critical,  historical 
investigations.  You  acknowledge  a  certain  religious  feel- 
ing in  man,  which  often  becomes  one  of  the  deepest  and 
most  powerful  impulses  of  his  life.  Christianity  has  been 
found  to  satisfy  and  guide  in  a  practical  way  this  deep  re- 
ligious element.  This  religion  seems  to  be  in  the  truest 
sense  natural  to  man.  Those  who  become  believers  when 
in  mature  life,  do  so,  in  a  great  majority  of  instances,  be- 
cause they  have  observed  its  effects  in  the  lives  of  others. 
This  is  their  practical  logic,  whatever  may  be  the  divine, 
or  human,  inlluences  that  lead  them  to  adopt  it.  Having 
once  embraced  Christianity,  their  belief  in  it  is  strength- 
ened by  their  experience.  This  new  evidence  often  be- 
comes so  vivid  and  strong  as  almost  to  obliterate  all  other 
evidence.  They  have  tried  this  religion.  It  has  carried 
them  safely  through  dangerous  crises  and  overwhelming 
afflictions.  They  love  the  Christian  faith.  They  love 
God.  They  love  Christ.  They  try  to  obey  the  precepts 
of  Christianit3%  and  they  enjoy  its  comforts,  hopes,  and 
promises ;  and  the  more  they  know  of  these  the  more  ar- 
dently are  they  attached  to  their  faith.  By  their  side  in 
great  numbers  are  those  who  have  been  educated  to  be 
Christians  from  earliest  childhood.  In  the  case  of  these, 
the  acceptance  of  Christianity  has  been  based  on  an  al- 
most unconscious  development  of  substantially  the  same 
process  of  reasoning  ;  for  every  one  knows  that  the  most 
powerful  Christianizing  influence  in  the  home  is  a  consist- 
ent and  winning  example. 


1890.]  a  Part  of  Christianity.  185 

Now  we  ask  you  to  point  out  wherein  this  acceptance 
of  Christianity  is  illogical  or  in  any  way  unreasonable. 
Do  you  say  that  such  reasoning  would  make  Mohamme- 
dans and  Buddhists  m  countries  where  these  religions 
prevail?  It  certainly  would,  and  does:  but  the  logic  is 
not  at  fault.  Logic  is  general,  and  does  not  furnish  its 
own  premises.  In  the  absence  of  Christianity  the  people 
are  shut  up  to  the  prevailing  faith.  Hence  missionaries 
are  sent  to  the  heathen  in  order  that  this  sound  logic  may 
have  true  premises.  And  the  strongest  arguments  on  mis- 
sion ground  to-day  come  from  the  lives  of  true  Christians. 
As  agnostics  you  value  evidence  from  the  seen  and  pres- 
ent. Christianity  was  offered  to  men  in  the  first  century 
on  the  evidence  of  things  seen  and  present.  It  is  now  of- 
fered largely  on  evidence  of  things  seen  and  present,  but 
very  different  things  from  ancient  miracles.  These  evi- 
dences have  been  usually  called  "  internal "  in  distinction 
from  the  "  external  "  or  historical  evidences.  They  might 
almost  as  well  be  called  the  "  Visible  and  Present  Evi- 
dences "  in  distinction  from  "  Past  Evidences."  You  de- 
spise the  past  evidences.  For  that  very  reason  we  ask 
you  to  respect  the  present. 

2.  The  fact  that  certain  past  events  have  been  super- 
seded, more  or  less,  in  their  evidential  value,  does  not  af- 
fect their  reality  or  give  them  small  importance.  Take 
an  illustration  from  political  history.  The  people  of  the 
United  States  have  been  celebrating  the  centennial  of  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  Does  any  one  think  of  stak- 
ing the  existence  and  legitimacy  of  the  present  system  of 
government  on  any  critical  discussion  of  the  political  acts 
of  a  hundred  years  ago  ?  Yet  no  one  questions  the  real- 
ity or  importance  of  those  acts.  A  convention  really  as- 
sembled and  held  memorable  debates  resulting  in  the  for- 
mation of  the  Constitution,  The  Constitution  thus  formed 
was  sent  to  the  states  and  received  the  assent  of  one  after 
another  until  at  last  it  was  adopted,  and  became  as  it  now 
remains  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.     At  the  beginning 


i86  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  [April, 

of  this  century  all  these  facts  were  fresh  in  the  minds  of 
the  great  body  of  the  people ;  but  during  the  last  twenty- 
five  years  how  many  could  be  found  who  knew  or  cared 
to  know  the  details?  These  things  have  been  all  quietly 
taken  for  granted  ;  and  taking  things  for  granted  is  next 
door  to  forgetting  them. 

All  this  illustrates,  though  imperfectly,  the  case  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  forgetfulness  of  the  details  of  its  origin  and 
early  history  has  been  prevented  by  the  diligent  study  of 
the  Bible.  And  this  very  diligence  has,  strangely  enough 
given  such  prominence  to  the  beginnings  of  Christianity 
that  some  minds  exalt  unduly  past  evidences  and  forget 
the  present.  Christians  have  thus  given  needless  offence 
to  your  critical  feeling,  and  given  themselves  needless 
doubt.  The  facts  of  primitive  Christianity  are  indeed 
the  foundation  of  our  faith  to-day,  but  the  critical  knowl- 
edge of  these  facts  is  not  the  foundation ;  and  the  point 
that  we  now  urge  upon  you  is  that  it  is  logical  and  every 
way  reasonable  to  hold  fast  to  those  facts  that  have  been 
incorporated  into  the  system,  though  they  may  have  lost 
to  us  a  large  measure  of  their  evidential  force.  The  value 
of  evidence  depends  on  the  character  and  circumstances 
of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and  is  therefore  liable  to 
change  with  every  generation.  To  the  primitive  believ- 
ers the  evidence  ran,  "You  have  seen,"  "Our  eyes  have 
seen,"  the  facts  of  the  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Je- 
sus. To  us  it  runs,  "  You  have  some  record  of  the  evi- 
dence that  satisfied  the  first  believers,  but,  more  than  that, 
you  have  the  system  and  power  that  have  grown  out  of 
the  facts  which  they  believed." 

Now  the  great  body  of  Christians  of  every  name  and 
sect  believe  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  one  of  the 
original  and  fundamental  facts  of  Christianity.  That  a 
slain  and  buried  Christ  should  never  have  risen  from  the 
dead,  and  yet  should  be  loved  and  worshipped  by  the 
millions  of  Christendom  as  the  ever-living  Saviour,  and 
the  author  and  pledge  of  the  resurrection  of  men,  is  an 


1890.]  a  Part  of  Christianity.  187 

historical  impossibility.  We  do  not  ask  you,  as  agnostics, 
to  believe  this,  but  you  cannot  fail  to  see  that  this  belief 
cannot  be  uprooted  by  criticising  the  records  in  the  Gos- 
pels. In  doing  that  you  are  merely  calling  in  question 
the  evidence  that  was  offered  eighteen  hundred  years  ago 
to  the  people  of  that  day.  You  are  behind  the  times. 
Confessedly  your  work,  also,  is  very  much  in  the  dark, 
for  you  do  not  know  all  the  evidence  that  appealed  to  the 
early  Christians.  Suppose  you  succeed  in  undermining 
the  evidence  that  has  come  down  to  us.  You  have  then 
merely  proved  that,  so  far  as  we  can  discover,  the  early 
Christians  were  not  justified  in  accepting  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  as  a  fact.  We  know  that  very  many  at  that  time 
agreed  with  your  position  and  refused  their  assent.  If  all 
had  done  so,  that  would  have  been  the  end  of  Christianity. 
It  would  have  died  at  its  birth.  But  it  did  not  die,  and  is 
alive  to-day  in  great  power ;  and  prominent  among  its 
doctrines  is  the  resurrection.  If  you  are  going  to  destroy 
this  article  of  its  faith,  you  must,  on  other  grounds  than 
historical  criticism,  blot  out  Christianity  itself,  as  a  pres- 
ent religion. 

3.  We  have  one  word  more.  Consider  the  hold  that 
Christianity  has  upon  the  hearts  of  believers  by  its  doc- 
trine of  the  future  resurrection.  We  do  not  ask  you  to 
believe  the  doctrine,  but  only  to  mark  what  comfort  and 
relief  it  gives  in  view  of  the  awful  fact  of  death.  It  is 
certainly  one  office  of  the  true  religion  to  comfort ;  and  it 
is  therefore  logical,  and,  what  is  more,  it  is  deeply  human, 
to  cling  to  that  faith  which  binds  up  the  broken  heart.  It 
has  been  often  said  that  primitive  religions  are  based  on 
imaginary  wants  and  fears,  and  that  as  fast  as  those  wants 
are  supplied  by  rational  exertion  and  civilization,  and 
those  fears  are  proved  groundless  by  the  advance  of  sci- 
ence, the  power  of  religion  has  been  weakened  and  its 
sphere  narrowed.  But  there  is  one  great  want  and  woe 
of  man  that  has  not  been  lessened  by  civilization.  Men 
still  die.     An  average  lifetime  has  been  slightly  extended. 


1 88  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  [April, 

but  the  end  is  as  sure  as  ever.  A  larger  proportion  of  in- 
fants are  brought  to  maturity,  but  all  that  are  born,  sooner 
or  later  die.  Civilization  itself  becomes  a  slayer,  and  the 
provisions  for  production  and  traffic  and  travel  and  pleas- 
ure are  often  the  terrific  instruments  of  death.  More  than 
this,  man  is  made  sensitive  by  civilization.  His  heart- 
strings grow  tender  from  refined  social  life.  But  death 
rends  this  warm  throbbing  social  organization  as  grimly 
as  it  does  the  rudest  savagery.  The  family  as  we  find  it 
in  modern  refined  life  shows  us  what  death  is — the  mother 
holding  her  cold  babe  pressed  to  her  heart,  the  husband, 
the  wife,  robbed  of  the  light  and  joy  of  life.  All  this  be- 
sides the  solemn  looking  forward  of  the  d3ing  one,  whose 
facing  of  death  is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  confined  to  the 
dim  hour  of  dissolution,  but  extends  back  through  the 
whole  period  of  serious  thinking.  The  savage,  whether 
of  to-day  or  of  some  far  off  day,  knows  little  about  death. 
Hence  we  say  that  the  religion  of  to-day  and  of  civilized 
lite,  if  it  is  to  be  a  comforter  and  strengthener  of  man, 
must  meet  the  sad  reality  of  death  by  a  comfort  that  is 
strong  and  real.  Christianity  does  this,  in  addition  to  its 
general  consolations  that  apply  to  all  life's  hardships,  by 
its  doctrine  of  the  future  resurrection  sealed  by  the  res- 
urrection of  its  Founder. 

We  beg  you  to  consider  that  man's  resurrection  means 
more  than  a  simple  renewal  of  bodily  life.  That,  of  itself, 
would  give  substance  to  faith  in  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  without  which  there  is  no  religion.  That,  of  itself, 
supplants  the  shadows  of  Platonic  speculation  by  realities 
(;f  human  experience,  and  it  makes  the  soul-existence  that 
follows  death — so  poorly  called  the  "  intermediate  state  " 
— seem  real.  But  the  Christian  resurrection  goes  much 
lurther.  It  means  restoration  and  perfection, — social  life 
restored  and  purified,  earth's  sundered  love  renewed, 
earth's  wounds  healed,  perfect  bodies,  perfect  souls,  no 
pain,  no  sin,  no  sorrow.  It  means  the  ideal  life,  the  "eter- 
nal life,"  to  which  it  is  an  introduction. 


1890.]  a  Part  of  Christianity.  189 

"  Have  you  forgotten,"  you  say,  "  the  resurrection  of 
damnation,  spoken  of  in  your  New  Testament?"  No; 
but  we  need  not  dwell  on  that  black  shadow  of  a  bright 
glory — a  shadow  cast  by  human  unbelief.  Christianity  is 
not  responsible  for  the  darkness  which  it  has  come  to  dis- 
sipate. If  the  reception  of  the  Christian  religion  were 
universal,  there  would  be  but  one  resurrection.  And  do 
you  think  it  strange  that  Christians  hold  fast  to  that  in 
this  world  of  death  ?  We  may  safely  say  that  they  will 
not  give  up  the  resurrection  until  they  are  ready  to  give 
up  all  religion ;  and  rehgion  they  will  not  give  up  until 
they  are  ready  to  quench  the  light  and  crush  the  hope  of 
their  own  nature.  It  is  vain  to  urge  upon  them  that 
death  is  in  harmony  with  the  whole  system  of  nature. 
This  only  strengthens  their  conviction  that  Christianity  is 
above  the  present  course  of  nature.  Some  of  them  have 
heard  of  the  old  Stoic  teaching  that  death  is  as  natural  as 
birth,  but  they  have  no  mind  to  seek  comfort  in  trouble 
by  throwing  themselves  into  the  cold  arms  of  a  dead  phi- 
losophy that  has  had  suicide  among  its  doctrines  instead 
of  a  resurrection. 

We  drop  the  form  of  address  to  unbelievers,  to  say,  in 
conclusion,  that  we  would  not  be  understood  to  disparage 
the  existing  documentary  evidence  of  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion. Any  one  who  takes  it  up  in  the  right  spirit  will  be 
struck  with  its  abundance,  its  clearness,  and  naturalness, 
and  beauty.  We  believe  that  it  will  be  to  the  end  of  time, 
an  independent  source  of  belief  in  the  resurrection,  and 
through  this  in  all  the  supernatural  of  Christianity.  It 
were  all  that  is  necessary  if  it  contained  but  one  sentence 
declaring  unequivocally  that  Jesus  rose.  But  without  even 
that,  we  have  tried  to  show  that  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  Christianity  would  carry  with  it  a  belief  in  the 
resurrection.  Now  when  we  see  and  feel  that  this  fact  is 
built  into  the  very  framework  of  our  faith,  just  as  a  con- 
stitutional article  is  incorporated  into  the  framework  of  a 
government,  then  we   can  go  back  to  those  early  testi- 


190  The  Resurrection  of  Christ.  [April, 

monies  of  Matthew  and  Mark  and  Luke  and  John,  and 
enjoy  the  child-like  simplicity  of  the  narratives,  the  trans- 
parent truthfulness  of  their  tone,  the  fidelity  in  details,  as 
of  eye-witnesses,  the  pathos  of  that  interview  with  the 
supposed  gardener,  the  thorough-going  doubt  of  Thomas 
— the  patron  saint  of  modern  sceptics — and  all  the  rest 
that  deepens  and  brightens  the  picture  in  our  minds  of 
those  birthdays  of  redemption.  Even  the  seeming  dis- 
crepancies may  enhance  our  interest,  by  showing  that  we 
are  reading  but  a  part  of  the  evidence  that  had  a  manifold 
presentation  to  the  first  believers.  Reading  the  Gospels 
with  such  eyes — and  Paul's  Gospel  with  them — we  are 
safe  from  the  terrors  of  a  cynical  criticism.  At  the  same 
time  we  can  heartily  welcome  literary,  historical,  and  an- 
tiquarian investigation.  Let  it  be  as  minute  and  thorough 
as  possible.  Let  even  unfriendly  hands  explore  the  foun- 
dations if  they  will.  They  can  no  more  disprove  the  res- 
urrection than  the  authors  of  the  "  Critical  History  of 
America "  can  prove  that  our  country  was  never  dis- 
covered, and  its  Constitution  never  formed.  This  confi- 
dence we  have  no  right  to  surrender  ;  yet,  in  the  great  de- 
bate between  faith  and  unbelief,  it  is  possible  to  misplace 
and,  abuse  it  by  claiming  for  the  external  and  historical 
evidences  of  miracles  a  certainty  that  belongs  only  to  the 
combined  evidence  of  the  present  and  the  past. 


^PHLET  BINDER 
^^  Syracuse,  N.  Y.  ^ 
^;  Stockton,  < 


DATE  DUE 

mn^mm 

t 

# 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  US    A. 

'  ^  BS2427  .P87 

#fli^       The  resurrection  of  Christ  a  part  of 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Speer  Libr.iry 


1    1012  00082  0599 


